20131004 Ver 1_401 Application_20130913

�013100q
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
(704)372 -1885 fax:[phone] ED& LM
Letter of Transmittal j
Sheet No.: 1 of 1
To: NCDENR, DWR Date: 9.16.13 Our Job No.: 2516368
512 N. Salisbury Street File Code: Your Job No.:
WEBSCAPE Unit, 9th FL Attention: Jennifer Burdette, 401 /Buffer Coord.
Raleigh, NC 27604 Reference: Vance H.S. Expansion, Charlotte, NC
We Are Sending: ®Attached ❑Under Separate Cover via ®Overnite ❑2nd Day ❑Regular mail the following items:
❑Shop Drawings ❑Prints ❑Sepias ❑Mylars ❑Samples ❑Change Order
❑Copy of Letter ❑Reports El Specifications ❑Cost Estimates ❑Electronic Media
®Other. PCN for 404 /401 in the matter of Vance HS, Charlotte, NC
Item
Rev. No.
Quantity
Description
Action Code
1
N/A
5
Vance HS Expansion 404/401 PCN
G
1
N/A
1
Check for Application Fee in amount of $570
C
SEP 1 ? 2013 1
Action Codes: A. Action Indicated on Item Transmitted C. For Your Use E. For Information Only G. For Approval
B. See Remarks Below D. As Requested F. For Review & Comment
Remarks Hey Jennifer - hope you're doing well!
Enclosed please find 5 copies of the 404/401 PCN in the matter of Vance HS; it is our understanding
that the application will be forwarded to Alan Johnson in the Moorseville Regional Office for
processing; Alan is familiar with the site & project; given the critical need of having the expansion
completed in time for the next school year, your assistan the process' g this certification is
Copies greatly appreciated! Sign • -fiC a
et.Go
an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912

20 1 3 100 4 STV moo
September 13, 2013
Via FEDERAL EXPRESS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Attention: Mr. Steven Kichefski LDNWR Subject: Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 39 7 2013 Vance High School Expansion ° Mecklenburg County, North Carolina w,a u,�Iry
Dear Mr. Kichefski: Branc
In coordination with Stewart Engineering (Stewart) and LS3P Architects, and on behalf of the
Charlotte Mecklenburg School System (CMS), STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates (STV /RWA) is
submitting a Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) application form (Attachment A) in accordance
with General Condition No. 31 and pursuant to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section
404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number 39- Commercial and Institutional Developments (Federal
Register Vol. 77, No. 34; updated February 21, 2012). A Request for Jurisdictional
Determination regarding the approximate location and extent of jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
within the Project Study Area (PSA), including a Request for Jurisdictional Determination form,
Wetland Determination Data Form, an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
and an Agent Certification of Authorization is found in Attachment B. Accompanying figures and
permit drawings are included in Attachment C. Photo documentation is found in Attachment D,
and the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank approval letter is found
in Attachment E.
Project Description/Purpose and Need
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools needs to expand the current Vance High School facilities to
alleviate the use of mobile classroom units and build a 25 classroom facility for the purpose of
delivering high school science and Career and Technical Education curriculum. The footprint
location of the proposed classroom building provides the best adjacency to connect to the
existing campus. The proposed location of this important element of the school campus is
consistent with the school Master Plan developed in 1998.
The total area comprised for the building construction is approximately 3.25 acres. The
expansion will include the building and associated Best Management Practice's (BMP). The
Vance High School Expansion site is generally bounded by Neal Road to the west, IBM Drive to
the north, and Interstate 85 to the east in the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC (See
Attachment C — Figure 1).
Based on the plans prepared by Stewart for CMS, the most efficient placement of the building is
adjacent to a perennial stream. To minimize potential issues associated with the stream and the
building foundation, the placement of a culvert to pipe the jurisdictional stream is proposed
(Attachment C — Figure 5) to route the stream around the building foundation footprint.
1000 WEST MOREHEAD STREET, SUITE 200
AN EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY PROVIDING QUALITY SERVICE SINCE 1911 I CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28208 -5358
(704) 372 -1885 FAX [phone]

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP#39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
The proposed culvert would result in permanent impacts to approximately 238 linear feet (952 square
feet/0.02 acre) of the perennial stream (Stream A). Stream A is considered a relatively permanent water
(RPW) by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Wafter
Resources (NCDWR). Waters of the U.S. within the project area and project impacts are further
described below.
Backaround
As noted on aerial photography (2009), and verified by field review, areas adjacent to the PSA are
improved by the current Vance High School facility; the PSA consists of disturbed/maintained land and
some woodland. Surrounding land uses consist of residential, comrnercial and institutional operations.
Prior to fieldwork, the following references were reviewed to identify possible waters of the U.S.,
including wetland areas:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute topographic quad Derita, NC (1993)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) On -line Wetlands Mapper
( http:// wetlandsfws .er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html )
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Sunrev of
Mecklenburg County, NC, (1980) Sheet4 of 13
• List of Hydric Soils of North Carolina, prepared by the USDA (2012)
• Mecklenburg County Property Ownership and Land Records Information System (POLARIS)
The USGS topographic quad depicts no potential jurisdictional "blueline" streams within the PSA, and
one proximal "blueline" jurisdictional stream, i.e., Doby Creek, southeast of the PSA (Attachrent C —
Figure 2). The NW I map does not depict any potential jurisdictional features within the PSA. The USDA
SCS soil map depicts no jurisdictional streams within the PSA, and one jurisdictional stream (Doby
Creek) adjacent southeast of the PSA. The following soils are mapped within the PSA (Attachment B —
Figure 3):
• CeB2 — Cecil sandy clay loam, 2-80/6 eroded slopes
• CeD2 —Cecil sandy clay loam, 8-15% eroded slopes
Cecil soils are classified as well- drained. The POLARISmap depicts no streams directly within PSA. One
stream is depicted occurring southeast of the PSA.
Methods
On June 12, 2013, STV/RWA Environmental Scientist Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS, field reviewed the PSA
for potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S, including wetlands, and potential protected species habitat.
Jurisdictional waters are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) and protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The boundaries of the potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were estimated in
the field based on the 1987 Delineation Manual three - parameter methodology, and the Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement (Version 2.0; April 2012).
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located within the PSA are limited to two jurisdictional streams (Streams
A and B); reference Attachment C (Figure 4) - Approximate Wafters of the U.S. and Wetlands Location
Map for the approximate location of these jurisdictional features Notre: A stomwi ater Best Management
Page 2

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP#39
® Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located within the PSA are limited to two jurisdictional streams
(Streams A and B); reference Attachment C (Figure 4) - Approximate Waters of the U.S. and
Wetlands Location Map for the approximate location of these jurisdictional features Note: A
stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) structure has been installed on -line with RPW
Stream A that is associated with the initial construction of Vance High School which took place
in the 1990's.
The Request for Jurisdictional Determination is included as Attachment B and is in specific
reference to the PSA. RPW Streams A and B join in confluence and drain from northwest to
southeast into Doby Creek; Doby Creek flows to Mallard Creek; which in turn flows to the Pee
Dee River; which in turn flows to the Great Pee Dee River, a traditional navigable water (TNW);
please reference Attachment D for photo documentation of Streams A and B, and the
stormwater BMP. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form is also included in
Attachment B.
Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
The project involves the piping of a portion of RPW Stream A. Due to the existing location of the
school, historically planned expansion area of the building, and proximity of the stream to the
proposed building foundation, 238 linear feet (952 sq.ft, 0.02 ac.) of impact is proposed to RPW
Stream A. Pursuant to discussions with Alan Johnson, NCDWR, following his on -site review, the
stream impacts through the existing on -line BMP were calculated via a straight line from the
upstream limit of the BMP to the culvert at the downstream end (Attachment C - Figure 4).
Avoidance and Minimization
Due to the nature of the project and existing school location, the site location for the building
expansion has been limited to the proposed location. The proposed impact to RPW Stream A is
the most feasible and practicable alternative due to the stream and its proximity to the
foundation of the proposed building. Relocation of the stream channel around the proposed
building was studied as an alternative; however, long term maintenance costs, topographical
constraints, as well as concern for the potential undermining of the building foundation during
significant storm events that overtopped the channel resulted in the decision to pipe the stream.
Project design specifications allow for the preservation of Surface Water Improvement and
Management Buffers (SWIM) assigned to the streams within and adjacent to the school
campus.
The purpose of the proposed 42" storm pipe is to carry stormwater runoff from the -25 acre
upstream drainage area around the building addition without concern for erosion and
undermining the footing foundation. The pipe has been sized to carry the 100 -year storm event.
The pipe length represents the minimum required and will extend from the existing creek bank
upstream to a point just beyond the building comer. Storm Inlet 15 proposed at the upstream
inlet end of the 42" pipe is approximately 6 feet deep and provides a top elevation that matches
the existing channel elevation which in turn minimizes the limits of construction and impact to
the upstream channel that will remain. The riprap apron at Headwall 2 has been sized according
to the discharge water velocity as recommended by the City of Charlotte and NCDENR
standards (Attachment C - Figure 5).
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the
General Conditions of the USACE Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 34;
Page 3

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP#39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the
General Conditions of the USACE Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 34;
updated February 21, 2012), applicable USACE Wilmington District Regional Conditions, and
applicable NCDWR consistency conditions (March 2012).
Compensatory Mitigation
Due to unavoidable impacts to Stream A, mitigation credits have been obtained from the City of
Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank to offset the loss of waters of the U.S.
impacted by the project; please see Attachment E for approval letter. Due to the aggressive
schedule associated with the need to complete building construction in time for the next
school year, and the time required for approval of the mitigation cost by the CMS Board,
CMS respectfully requests as part of the permit approval, that the permit conditions allow
construction to begin prior to obtaining receipt of payment from the City of Charlotte
Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank. CMS understands the requirement for
providing receipt of mitigation credits, and will provide that information to the regulatory
agencies immediately upon processing of the payment.
Stormwater Management Plan
The storm drainage system and storm water BMP depicted on the plan have been previously
approved by the City of Charlotte and were designed in accordance with the City of Charlotte
Post Construction Ordinance. The proposed storm drainage piping directs runoff from the
proposed impervious areas around the building and also the roof drainage into the BMP. Based
on calculations provided by Stewart, the drainage area for the RPW Stream A is 23.85 acres of
which 8.3 acres is currently impervious, yielding an impervious percentage of 34.8 %. For the
building addition's sand filter and detention system, the drainage area is 1.44 acres of which
0.794 acre is impervious, yielding an impervious percentage of 55.14 %. The BMP provides
control of the project stormwater by limiting the discharge to the pre - developed runoff rate, and
also provides 85% total suspended solids removal (Attachment F).
Construction sequence is anticipated to begin with the maintenance of the existing Phase 1
Skimmer Basin and diversions that are currently in place per the approved erosion control
design. The proposed additional limits will then be cleared and the installation of the 42" pipe
and a parallel 15" pipe from Headwall 2 to Inlet 15 and Manhole 3 will be installed. A riprap
apron at Headwall 2 will then be installed and the area around Inlet 15 will be graded and
stabilized. Completion of this installation will provide a clean water bypass through the 42" pipe
around the building construction area. Construction of the Phase 2 Skimmer Basin and
associated diversion ditches and other measures depicted on the previously approved plans will
subsequently be completed. Upon completion of this work, the Phase 1 Skimmer Basin will be
removed and construction of the building pad will proceed (Attachment C — Figure 4).
Cultural Resources
A literature review of historic and archaeological sites was conducted for the PSA. No historic
sites in the immediate area of the project were identified. Due to the limited nature of the
jurisdictional impact, the likelihood of unidentified cultural resources being present in the
proposed permit area is considered remote.
Protected Species
STV /RWA conducted a protected species habitat assessment and review of the project site on
June 12, 2013. Prior to the field reviews, STV /RWA reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Page 4

Request for lunsdictional Detemunation and NWP#39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
(USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases, which provided
existing data concerning the potential occurrence of federally and state protected (threatened or
endangered) species in Mecklenburg County. These databases indicate that there are federal
and state threatened or endangered species that may occur in Mecklenburg County. These
protected species and their respective physical descriptions and habitat requirements are
described below.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laeyigata) - Federal /State Endangered
The smooth coneflower grows up to 1.5 meters tall and contains large [approximately 20
centimeters (cm) in length and 7.5 cm in width] basal leaves. The stem of the plant is smooth
with few leaves. The flower consists of rays that are light pink to purplish, usually drooping and
are five to eight cm long. This perennial plant generally occurs in basic to circumneutral soils of
meadows and woodlands. The plant, which typically blooms in June, has been found growing in
habitats that include upland oak - hickory or mixed oak -pine forests, old field habitat, transmission
line R/Ws, and roadsides. Smooth coneflower is an associate of the Piedmont Prairie
community type, often found growing with populations of Schweinitz's sunflower. This plant is
listed as a current record for Mecklenburg County.
No individuals of smooth coneflower were observed within the project area. The NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the nearest
populations of smooth coneflower. The NCNHP determined that no populations of smooth
coneflower were present within two miles of the PSA. The PSA lacks the proper habitat
requirements preferred by this species, so it is unlikely that smooth coneflower would be found
within the project area. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat present and the available
databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on smooth coneflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzih - Federal /State Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant limited to the Piedmont counties of North
and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall from a cluster of tuberous
roots. The sunflower consists of a flower with a yellow disk and ray flowers formed on small
heads. The disc is less than 1.5 cm across and the petals are two to three cm long. The
lanceolate leaves are opposite on the lower stem and alternate near the flowers. The typical
habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line right -of -ways (RNVs),
open areas, and edges of upland woods. Periodically maintained R/Ws are typically considered
good potential habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Major characteristics of soils associated
with suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland interstream flats or
gentle slopes, those which are clayey in texture (and often with substantial rock fragments),
those which have a high shrink -swell capacity, and those which vary over the course of the year
from very wet to very dry. Flowering occurs from August to the first frost of the year.
No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed within the project area. The NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the nearest
populations of Schweinitz's sunflower. The NCNHP determined that no populations of
Schweinitz's sunflower were present within two miles of the project area. The PSA lacks the
proper habitat requirements preferred by this species, and there are no known populations
within the proximity of the project area, so it is unlikely that that Schweinitz's sunflower would be
found within the project area. Based on the field review, the lack of habitat present and the
Page 5

N
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
Request for Junsdicttonal Determination and NWP#39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
available databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on Schweinitz's
sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) - Federal /State Endangered
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoid shaped shell. The outer surface of this
species shell is yellowish, greenish, or brownish with greenish, blackish rays. The inner shell
ranges from iridescent to mottled pale orange. The average size of the Carolina heelsplitter is
78 millimeters (mm). The Carolina heelsplitter is found in small to large streams and rivers as
well as ponds over a variety of substrates usually near stable, well- shaded stream banks. Most
individuals are found in undercuts and along shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots,
a buried log, or rocks. The Carolina heelsplitter requires waterways with well oxygenated clean
water. Pursuant to the USFWS Carolina Heelsplitter 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation
2012, eleven populations of this mussel are presently known to exist, three of which occur within
North Carolina. Two small remnant populations occur in the Catawba River system in Waxhaw
Creek in Union County, and another small population occurs in a short stretch of Goose Creek,
a tributary to the Rocky River in the Pee Dee River system, also in Union County.
Due to the presence of perennial streams, potential habitat is located within the PSA; however,
based upon field review, lack of clean oxygenated streams present within the project boundary,
and review of the available databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on
the Carolina heelsplitter.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michau2Qn - Federal /State Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from one to three feet
in height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate
leaflets. Most plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants
with both male and female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal,
erect, dense cluster, and colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June
to July; the fruit, a red drupe, is produced through the months of August to October. Michaux's
sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This plant
reportedly survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area.
This plant is restricted to seven counties in North Carolina, and is listed as historic in
Mecklenburg County.
No individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed within the PSA. The NC Natural Heritage
Program ( NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the nearest populations
of Michaux's sumac. The NCNHP determined that no current populations of Michaux's sumac
were present within two miles of the project area. The PSA lacks the proper habitat
requirements preferred by this species, and there are no known populations within the proximity
of the project area, so it is unlikely that Michaux's sumac would be found within the project area.
Based on the field review, the lack of habitat present and the available databases, it is
determined that this project will have 'no effect' on Michaux's sumac.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The lists of protected species were reviewed,
likelihood of the presence of each species in
disturbed /maintained area with existing school
and evaluations were performed regarding the
the project area. The PSA largely consists of
buildings and associated facilities. Due to the
Page 6

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and N WP #39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
habitat requirements for the four aforementioned protected species, the habitat available within
the project area, and the findings of the field survey, it is determined that the proposed project
will have no effect on any of the protected species listed for Mecklenburg County.
Closina
Please feel free to contact either of the undersigned should you have any questions or concerns
regarding this request for jurisdictional determination and Nationwide Permit #39. A copy has
also been forwarded to the USFWS Asheville Field Office pursuant to the final regional
conditions for nationwide permits in the Wilmington District.
Sincerely,
STV /RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
W
W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS Michael lagnoc S
Senior Scientist Senor Scientis r. roject Manager
Attachments: Attachment A: Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
Attachment B: Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Attachment C: Figures
Attachment D: Photographs
Attachment E: City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Approval Letter
Attachment F: Stormwater Management Plan
cc: NCDWR (5 copies)
Asheville Field Office, USFWS
Page 7

10 �o� WATE,9O
1
-c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Q Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NWP 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes X❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
Q 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes Q No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes Q No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑X Yes ❑ No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑Yes Q No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes Q No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Vance High School Expansion
2b. County:
Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools; CMS Capital Program Services c/o Mike Higgins
3d. Street address:
3301 Stafford Drive
3e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28208
3f. Telephone no.:
704 - 201 -3406
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
m.higgins @cros.k12.nc.us
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
Q Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
5c. Street address:
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28208
5e. Telephone no.:
704 - 372 -1885
5f. Fax no.:
704 - 372 -3393
5g. Email address:
william.fulton @stvinc.com
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
104739108
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.30068 Longitude: -80.77025
1c. Property size:
3.25 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Doby Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c. River basin:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Site consists of an existing school facility (Vance High School). General land use within the vicinity of the site is institutional, light commercial,
residential, and undeveloped woodland.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 535
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Please refer to cover letter Project Description/Purpose and Need section.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Please refer to the cover letter for project details. Typical equipment includes, but is not limited to excavators/grading equipment.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes Q No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made.
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
Agency /Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
S. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
[]Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W2 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
Stream A
PER
Corps
4
238
S2 -
Choose one
S3 -
Choose one
S4 -
Choose one
-
-
S5 -
Choose one
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
238
3i. Comments:
A culvert is proposed for Stream A to divert water safety away from the proposed building's foundation.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 -
Choose one
Choose
02 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water Impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number—
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 -
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Due to location of existing school buildings, the site location for the proposed building is limited to the proposed location. Stream relocation feasibility
was studied as an alternative; however, topographic constraints and concerns of the stream channel's proximity to the proposed building foundation
resulted in the decision to pipe RPW Stream A, please refer to cover letter Avoidance and Minimization section (page 3)
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Pipe length represents the minimum required and will extend from the existing creek bank upstream to a point just beyond the building comer. Rip rap
aprons have been designed according to the discharge water velocity as recommended by the City of Charlotte and NCDENR standards Please refer
to cover letter Avoidance and Minimization section (page 3)
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
Q DWQ Q Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
Q Mitigation bank
❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank.
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Stream
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity: 250 If
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments: ease refer to the cover letter ompensa ory Mitigation section page .
4. Complete If Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes Q No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The storm drainage system and storm water BMP depicted on the plans have been previously approved by the City of Charlotte and were designed in
accordance with the City of Charlotte Post Construction Control Ordinance. The proposed storm drainage piping directs runoff from the proposed
impervious areas around the budding and also the roof drainage into the BMP. The BMP provides control of the project stormwater by limiting the
discharge to the pre - developed runoff rate, and also provides 85% total suspended solids removal; please refer to the cover letter Stormwater
Management Plan section (page 4).
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Approved by the City of Charlotte
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
❑x Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally- implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
X❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
E]Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑x Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑X Yes ❑ No
attached?
S. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑X Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes Q No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes Q No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after- the -fact permit application?
❑Yes Q No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes Q No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The Vance High School Expansion is based upon the master plan developed in 1998. More space is required to accommodate students already
enrolled or anticipated to be enrolled in the near future. Expansion is limited to the existing campus No future development is anticipated that will be
associated with the expansion of the school; therefore, downstream water quality will not be impacted.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater for the proposed building will be treated by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) municipal sewer system.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes Q No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
STV/RWA reviewed the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases prior to field
review; refer to the cover letter pages 4, 5, and 6. A copy of this PCN has been forwarded to the USFWS Field Office in Asheville, NC.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAH) Nation Marine Fisheries Service Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The National Register was consulted and indicated that there were no sites listed adjacent to the project study area.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? 7-13
Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Floodplain Maps; Mecklenburg County POLARIS GIS System
tQ�P.I J-0. n 0 c.c O
9
.
Q.r3.l3
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
A plicant/ a t' Signature
Date
�--
(Agent's signature is alid if an authorization
letter from the licant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP #39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
ATTACHMENT B
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
- Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
- United States Army Corps of Engineers Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets (Streams
A and B)
,North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Forms (Streams A and B)
Version 4.11
- Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (Rapanos)
- Wetland Determination Form — Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement (Version
2.0, April 2012)
-Agent Authorization

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: September 13, 2013
COUNTY Mecklenburg__ TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 32.0 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Vance High School Expansion
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
Charlotte Mecklenburg School System: CMS Capital Program Services
Attn: Mike Higgins
3301 Stafford Drive
Charlotte, NC 704 - 201 -3406
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STV/Ralnh Whitehead Associates
Attn: W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS
1000 W. Morehead St., Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 (704) 372 -1885
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On -going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: Vance High School Expansion 1
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following fast two items must be
forwarded.
(3Q Site Location Map (Attachment C - Figure 1)
(7) USGS 7.5' Derita, NC (1993) Topographic Quadrangle (Attachment C - Figure 2)
(X) NRCS Soil Series Map (Attachment C - Figure 3)
(X) Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Location Map (Attachment C - Figure 4)
(]) Proposed Impacts (Attachment C - Figure 5)
(X) Pre - Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit 39 (Attachment A)
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form (Attachment B)
(X) Stream Classification Forms (Attachment B)
(3Q Routine On -Site Data Form (Attachment B)
(3) Representative Photographs (Attachment D)
Signature of P ope wner_c
Autho ' d A
Mr. Michael A. gnocco, PWS

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
Perennial RPW Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools 2. Evaluator's Name W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS
3. Date of Evaluation: 02/06/13 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: Stream A 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: –25 acres 8. Stream Order: I"
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: –100 ft. 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): Within project study area
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 35.29954 N - 80.770689 W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): Proposed Riving
14. Recent Weather Conditions: hot. dry
15. Site conditions at time of visit: hot. sunny
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface ar -
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 30 % Residential 40 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
30 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: --4 ft 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): –2 ft
23. Channel slope down center of stream: —Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) X Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: – Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 38 Comments: Perennial
Perennial RPW Stream A exhibits perennial flow: however prior impact from development and rip rap placed in the stream
have degraded water quality. No evidence of macrobenthic invertebrates was identified
Evaluator's Signature W- Date 9t, I h
This channel evaluation form is intended to be us d only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change – version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Perennial RPW Stream A
*These charactenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGIO NT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
0-5
—
0-5
3
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 — 4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0• springs, see s, wetlands etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
2
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
2
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
E,
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
co
r15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
4
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
2
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
1
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
0
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
Ono
evidence = 0• common numerous es = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
38
*These charactenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
Perennial RPW Stream B
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools 2. Evaluator's Name W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS
3. Date of Evaluation: 02/06/13 4. Time of Evaluation: 3:00 pm
5. Name of Stream: Stream B 6. River Basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate Drainage Area: —5 acres 8. Stream Order: In
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: —20 ft. 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): Within project study area
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 35.00064 N - 80.770948 W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
14. Recent Weather Conditions: hot
15. Site conditions at time of visit: hot, sunn
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface ar
NO
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 30 % Residential AO % Commercial _% Industrial ^% Agricultural
30 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
21. Bankfull Width: --4 ft 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): —1 ft
23. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) --Gentle (2 to 4 %) X Moderate (4 to 10 %) __—_Steep ( >10 %)
24. Channel Sinuosity: _Straight X Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 36 Comments: Perennial
Perennial RPW Stream B originates from a spring and joins in confluence with Perennial RPW Stream A Flow has been noted during
multi le site visits. Iron oxidizing bacteria vely predominant.
Evaluator's Signature w " i s�'a�, Xmr
J Date_
This channel evaluation form is intended to be sed only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Perennial RPW Stream B
1 nese cnaractenstics are not assessed to coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGIO NT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
0-5
—
0-5
3
2
Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
3
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max po ints
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
no discharge = 0• springs, see s, wetlands etc. = max points)
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
0
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
0
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-3
0
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive deposition--- 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4
0 — 5
1
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
�r
deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
13
Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max points)
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
3
14
Root depth and density on banks
E,
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
1
is
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
E
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
1
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
1
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
(%
21
Presence of amphibians
Ono
evidence = 0• common numerous es - max
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max Points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
36
1 nese cnaractenstics are not assessed to coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 06 -12 -13
Project/Site: Vance High School
Expansion Stream A
Latitude: 35.29954 N
Evaluator: Brandon Fulton
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude: - 80.29954 W
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if z 30" 30
Ephemeral Intermitte erennia
e.g. Quad Name: Derita
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
©
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
a
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
- aniticial ditcnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 10 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
0
15. Sedimenton plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1 0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
I No = 0
Yes 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 )
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
W-1
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 Other ;W
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: RPW Stream A contains bed and bank Ordin= High Water Mark and exhibits
perennial flow.
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 06 -12 -13
Project/Site: Vance High School
Expansion Stream B
Latitude: 35.00064 N
Evaluator: Brandon Fulton
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude: - 80.770948 W
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if 2:19 or erenniai if 2:30* 31
Ephemeral Intermitte erennia
e g Quad Name: Derita
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
Q
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
CD
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
0
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 11 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
30
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
I
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: RPW Stream B originates from a spring,
has bed and bank and strong
iron oxidizing bacteria
presence.
Sketch:

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Vance High School Expansion, Stream A and Stream B
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.300680° 14, Long. - 80.770250° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Doby Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Yadkin Pee Dee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105
Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
0 Field Determination. Date(s): 06/12/13 Site delineation.
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S " within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): i
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: Within PSA, —535 linear feet: 4 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: established by OH_ WM�
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non- regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
i Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Olck Lists
Drainage area: ^Pick Lis_C
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through Vick Lisy tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List* river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ,Pick Lisp river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Fick List* aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List* aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
`Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.

Identify flow route to TNW5: Seasonal to Perennial RPW Stream D and Seasonal RPW Stream E join into confluence
and flow into Fourmile Creek; which in turn flows into McAlpine Creek; which in turn flows into Sugar Creek; which
turn flows into the Catawba River, a Traditional Navigable Water.
Tributary stream order, if known: Seasonal to Perennial RPW Stream D is a stream order 2 adjacent to its perennial
origin. Seasonal RPW Stream E is stream order 1.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
[]Manipulated (man- altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Fick -Iii.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Fick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 3 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Fick Lisp
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick Lis_i
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick Lisi Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pnknowni. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
E3 Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings/characteristics
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
❑ survey to available datum;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
5 Flow route can be described by rdenttfymg, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
6A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g , where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

Characterize tributary (e.g, water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Undisturbed mature woodland occur adjacent to Streams D and
E.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Fick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Fick Li_sd
Characteristics
Subsurface flow: Dick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relations) to TNW
Project wetlands are Fick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick LiSO aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Fick Lisp.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pkk List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if an )_____
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: rick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It Is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (R), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: RPW Stream A and B both have bed and bank, strong hydrology and geomorhology. Moderate flow has
been observed during several site visits covering several months in duration.
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 535 linear feet 4 width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
0 Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section II1.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Q Wetlands: acres.
F. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Q If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Q Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
�udgment (check all that apply):
] Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Q Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
®Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
FM U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Derita 1:24000 Topography Quadrangle (1993).
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Data Mart, Mecklenburg County (Accessed 2013).
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
StatetLocal wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Attachment C - Figure 4. Mr. Side True Color Aerial Topography (2009).
or ® Other (Name & Date): Attachment D - Site Photographs 14.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: RPW Stream A and RPW Stream B joins in confluence and flows to Doby Creek
(RPW); which flows to Mallard Creek (RPW); which flows to the Pee Dee River (RPW); which flows into the Great Pee Dee River (TNW).
RPW Stream A and RPW Stream B both contain a OHWM and moderate flow regime.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Sao Vance High School Expansion Qty/County Mecklenburg Sampling Date 06 -12 -13
Applicant/Owner Charlotte Mecklenburg School System State NC Sampling Point Upland - DPI
Investigator(s) W Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS Section, Township, Range Charlotte
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) Sideslove Local relief (concave, convex, none) Convex Slope (%): –12
Subregion (LRR or MLRA). LRR P; MLRA 136 Let 35.299607 N Long -80.770487 W Datum NAD 83
Sod Map Unit Name Cecil NWI classification
Are climatic J hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Sod or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sod Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks DPI is representative of an upland; please see Attachment C - Figure 4.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required.
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturabw (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhtzospheras on Living Roots. (0)
_ Moss True Lines (B16)
Water Marks (61)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_— Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x_ Depth (inches)*
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches)
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches),
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
No Wetland Hydrology Indicators were identified at DPI.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size
30' radius )
Cover i s
Status
1
Pines (aeda
x 2 =
40 Yes
FACU
2
Ouercus alba
UPL species
10
FAC
3
Carya ovata
10
FACU
4
Cornus Florida
10
FACU
5
6
7
70 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 35
20% of total cover
14
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum
(Plot size 15' radius }
1
Prunus serotina
5
FACU
2
Fagusgrandifolia
5
FACU
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
to = Total Corer
50% of total cover 5
20% of total cover
2
Herb Stratum (Plot size
5' radius )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Sampling Point: Upland -DPI
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata 0 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 0 (AB)
mevaience inoex worKSneet:
Total % Cover of
Multiply by
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B1A =
— 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3 0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata-
Tree –Woody plants, excludng vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in dameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
SaplinglShrub –Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greaterthen or equal to 3 28 ft (1
m) tall
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall.
50% of total cover 20% of total cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 30'radius )
1 _Quercus albs 10 FACU
2 Toxicodendron radicans 5 FACU
3
4
5
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover 7.5 20% of total cover 3
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Hydrophytic vegetation was not identified within DP 1.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No x_
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland -DPI
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators,)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Texture Remarks
0 -6 2.5 YR 4/4 90 7.5 YR 4/4 _2 C M SCL
6-28 2.5 YR 4/6 80 C
`Type C= Concentration, D--Depletion, RM= Reduced Matra. MS= Masked Sand Grains `Location PL= Pore Lirnna. M =Matnx
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils ?:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_- Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
_, Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matra (172)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Sods (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
i 2 cm Muck (AIQ (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matra (S4)
_ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
?Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
s Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stnpped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Type
Depth (inches)
No Hydric Soil Indicators were identified at DPI.
Hydric Soil Present? Yea
!' � J r dt•43 �.
. � tom° - ��r��3 �►1 ��✓�
No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
1 l QieiA —, representing Charlotte - Mecklenburg Schools,
hereby certify that I have authorized Michael A. IWocco. P.W.S. of STV/Ralph
Whitehead Associates, Inc., to act on my behalf and take actions necessary in the
processing, issuance, and acceptance of the request for jurisdictional determination for the
proposed Expansion of Vance High School Protect and in the pursuit of required Section
404/401 permit authorizations and related services.
We hereby verify that the information submitted in this request/application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
ql -13
Date
xx
Agents sign! re
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign future application correspondence.

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP #39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
ATTACHMENT C
FIGURES

u LOCATED TOP
-\ OF CREEK BANKT -
•'n"��t -cc.or
FIGURE 5 2L
� T
m ZN IVOOOT
eTM PFE ea�ELE
M0.
FROM
TOP (LP)
ELEV,
TO
LENGTH
(FT)
DHAAKTER
(IN.)
YwiEAIAI
SLOPE
M
N0.
INV.
N0.
NV.
15
569.00
14
666.25
2D9
42
RCP
1.32
11
566.05
2
666.00
4
42
RCP
1.31
13
6 %.15
It
693.87
105
15
RCP
2.2
12
689000
11
668954
46
15
RCP
1900
11
668.34
Ex. E
686.60
37
15
RCP
06]
EX E
686.30
10
678.76
Be
15
RCP
0.65
EX A
672.50
9A
671.94
40
24
RCP
1.62
9A
671.62
9
671.00
41
24
RCP
1.35
6
675.00
7
674.12
88
15
RCP
1.00
]
67].92
6
673.IJ
79
15
RCP
1.00
6
6]2.11
S
671.00
14
IS
RCP
1.30
4
667.50
3
667.16
34
15
RCP
0.63
2
666.0
192
15
RCP
0.50
DPANMDE STRUCTURE SCHEDULE
M0.
TYPE OF
STRUCTURE
TOP (LP)
ELEV,
INVERT OUT
ELEV.
DETAIL
REFERENCE
REMARKS
2
E.
BUILDING
00
aAIA anA
(I
D
3
YN
675.80
92
m Dns My A M1F
r xtT
4
OCS
-
50
-
CB CATCH BASIN
S
FES
-
DO
-
PRECAST
6
O
579.60
.11
ANaD1 tm Pxf M1• • MH
7
O
679.50
92
. en+
O
678.50
00
V�:.-
s. Au
9
FES
00
CAST
679.40
62
sA Oxs
SR A N STA u Dn T. w MIl
10
YH
662.00
76
6. Pns
all
11
YH
696.00
34
12
13
CB
YN
697.70
]02.00
DO
15
[. Du
O Day
VERPY EaS1ING PPE INVERT
14
YN
707.00
896.1 S
m Dxs Ma • MS•
PRECAST
15
T
705.00
669.00
6' E 6' . B' OPENINGS ON 4 SIDES
6- PVC PIPE FROM MH 9A�
CARRYING 1' O' RUNOFF
BOTTOM ELEV.
2' BERM AT ELEV. 671
[AFTER CONCRETE LP, PLACE
�X LAYER O' /57 STONE ON
1 TOP OF FILTER FABRICI
EBAT TO BE LINED LATIN
RAP
r.-\ LEVEL SPREADER DETAIL
.p 6- PVC PPE FROM MH 9A
J CARRYING 1- OF RUNOFF
:e (
- - - - - I ` ` 411 l y )1�I1 / /l,/ /II //'
21- RCP OUTLET
„
I \ \ I I /
21' RCP INLET STEEL RER RATE ATTACHED
TO SIDES OF MANHOLE WITH
wv~K n..Ee'wPC) 1
Tp
1 WML,ma t- �\ \\ \ \� 1 II
S' 11 ( I
PLAN MEW
WATERTIGHT SEAL
BUILDING
I) _ _`_
1
-
(I
D
.`
�� "% �� �� : \ \�� t : ` ►,1 n 11 j1,\ 1
�`
24• RCP INLET
TM•an: 1
.r. IM777SSaI1!>�j I
, - • \ \�? Rj 1 1
1 \ [ 111 111 \
2.
2.- as OUTLET
r xtT
` 1'
NV. 871.64
SECTION R -x
ONILET
F� 1
nFLOW SPUTTER DETAIL (MH 9A)
CB CATCH BASIN
DI DROP "LET
NN . MANHOLE
OCS . OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE
FES FLARED END SECTION
EW END.ALL
20 LF CONCRETE LEVEL
SPREADER LP. 7j' ABOVE BERM
FT FV A71 ♦1 I IP Tn w I EVEL
6- PVC PIPE FROM MH 9A�
CARRYING 1' O' RUNOFF
BOTTOM ELEV.
2' BERM AT ELEV. 671
[AFTER CONCRETE LP, PLACE
�X LAYER O' /57 STONE ON
1 TOP OF FILTER FABRICI
EBAT TO BE LINED LATIN
RAP
r.-\ LEVEL SPREADER DETAIL
.p 6- PVC PPE FROM MH 9A
J CARRYING 1- OF RUNOFF
:e (
- - - - - I ` ` 411 l y )1�I1 / /l,/ /II //'
21- RCP OUTLET
„
I \ \ I I /
21' RCP INLET STEEL RER RATE ATTACHED
TO SIDES OF MANHOLE WITH
wv~K n..Ee'wPC) 1
Tp
1 WML,ma t- �\ \\ \ \� 1 II
S' 11 ( I
PLAN MEW
WATERTIGHT SEAL
BUILDING
I) _ _`_
1
-
(I
D
.`
�� "% �� �� : \ \�� t : ` ►,1 n 11 j1,\ 1
�`
24• RCP INLET
TM•an: 1
.r. IM777SSaI1!>�j I
, - • \ \�? Rj 1 1
1 \ [ 111 111 \
2.
2.- as OUTLET
r xtT
` 1'
NV. 871.64
SECTION R -x
ONILET
F� 1
nFLOW SPUTTER DETAIL (MH 9A)
p7 .11KD slot
2 MFRDr.L OF DR 0...n -1 M A�MD.TA- m - A III N TTTTI1
Slp mw I-T-I -M T w -SIR c-mr, KIY.190�1 MIST E mTAWo
rlIO1 M NKCRO OTIK-
A. OIER TO U S K T I U1 . --..11 A I6NMw OF DM %W ON M OMl
4. �4a � Fq KIA./FO w11L W T E SI-TTED m Olr DFOEE!
S ALL COTTONS NW y0I ELCVAT KFIECI F.pKD gAEi
S ALL I. A- AK IN IKFEKNE m M K-. COH-1q SHALL vVWv M
KN A$tx PKq 10 MOUND OKAO
1. M (--T. OHAI1 A4KO.T[LT -1 m D.t. MT OSOKP -. fu.o
OT -T. -- FIELD rB�IONS A CdS1WC1bI OOOA[NR . SNAU -1 m
l Cg1IMCTq - W-1 LOC.5141 0' Au [mTM .-TES w M FELP 11.1. m
KOHNNc OMTIxICTION
S MIIRACIq SNNL YEFY K. CMMIIOIRI SNWMT 10 wAN91101 6Aq TO
qA0[.
1D Wn d O-F4gIKO r .i.Ky.l .icu auuinw sA�o TO I- lmOrlMWC[T�OII
PO 91, OnM M 1Dr ]4 .IDES AND A MMrAI SM Sm. r.Dnq K"IW Kl-
N -wp EIM. - [rOSOAKD AM" 9MLU K 4-T[D TO I-I q
W. rw9CTOR ENBW. KKR TO EOXW INOK[X'S Kr T FOR AMTxNN
[NIIH.OM Y[CnG- Ara ROIOKr[.TS
1 TS OF CL - - q - RM M[ -D - M AINmaMR .1
� Fu 4m IAANL q OM. gMi.1G KOL,ftw-
IT. M INIOPDEO Cglours AND EOI ELIVAT1P6 91o.I .MM .D. M 1 .
l015, ND 9K.Nx WAS KIMCI IINOILO [ILVADOb wRL4w6 IAtENI. KKR
O PAWMENI q u- OAIA to ESTA COMI[CT TISAE q AOOI[GAn
.M[ MME EL[VATIOR 10 K C X. 1.OL. - 10I A I.
1] Cg1.,1C1q THAL DN9AK -w OUNA2 9101 -1 wlNarr 14 gAII A
gANW R AOmSS K. rAl(E.T M[wi m K. M [m W. DRAMAK IN TM OR
Lt(T OVI-
1•. RDE DRAM rnRlp 51uLL K ILt Pp[ SHALL -4 A I. SLID( - N. A
raY P4,T YAESS OM11O4 .00ARO q 0.•N. EIq TO R1YIf1 RAINS
RoE qAM Lo[ATns
11 KnR m [RDfoI CgWO RAIL -0, rq MNSTRUCnq EOIKNE KDIK m
1. ALL gAED q OSTMKEp AEM KTOO M -IT OF IA1ML SO[.Nxi W 01HOIL
1.. -1 AM Rol OTHE- INOlGKD KR M RIN. SHNL K
SIyDT[D .M • K. LAM K[KO M AELI.HQ .M M EEDIK 4(pTCAT
WS 6 [SIAO -Oft 9NALL NA - K-0 W. - A KALTH SIAM E
I7. =-I [IRK[RK. MC. Ntl I.1 KKUINKO AMY EOn04KN I-u- E
M OofCT rWq[IIT1 AND ,HAS NOT IIAK ANT K1D.wM1 M m M 91TA6INT
v SITE SOAS Fq TIE AS ft, BENEATH PgOEO OUILD OL (OITW- i IM91G
WIN THE Iq OTIK11 uEi [MTHADI.I OTE K CO.ITTEO w O THAU, K
aM M Or, THE AOAlIO6 E A OINf[0 EOROwKN CAON[[. .ID fuLL E
EIAAKD n M o.t..
16 SK.MT IKI KUMO. -. HMS Ml KWK. M STR X-AL ST- OF AM
[DSDNO K1AMN' ONUS q M SITE AFU DOES NDl AS9At NN KSPOF9KIW FIN
M SIMKTIIK SIAEIW OF 9xH ONUS F M1. M O.K. K KTPO16KE Fq
ETA.MO M ER.ES OF A O,AJKD [Nqt[. m EN[. M STRLn'1M1K SI-TY
E AIL c-- ETAAME .ALLS SOKOA[D m KI- F ANT. - m - OF
[.O[ A m - M - OF ALL MOPOKO WOK.IY -1 Kl- ONUS
A.OI o. M OIIAI.IGS M K- OF NL KDK.1N 11.1 E1MOq GALLS B m
E [OF OTTAI O KCCDROANE OM M AOM (OL W 41AD.4 COE. EC110M
61D I EIAI[p KTAlO4: 1MLL E9q OR THE KNLO F A IOM CA.o T
TO Ndl[q. MALL K iIO11R0 O M LOCAL RAM I MN1gAW I.q
TO CO6TWCRM • A CA L uENYO HE I WST P[KON [o4f1 -1
O.YNITA DIL L(AFTIy " A EALCO IE1RR m M LOON lISTHE Au o 1101
M 01101 .NUS KK CORnxICnO M ACCOMAIICE OM HE ArMOtO
L ALDNI D gAOMGS, w COYNLxE OM EC1IM 16101 E M 1IgM CMOw
6116D6K COO[.
A IMPV MOVSl9OT IPq AKA. .194 K
V. OYwN E AKA MJST E STAKIEO WOK FATTA- C.-S AMID ft.. KDIA
AK wS1NUED-
». ANHIOVAI OF 116 PLM O -1 M --ZA- 10 O ADAAE111 PR01[RES
I E. FIELD A� Id �FO R gNWFD KMAWOI MRI E MIANED
it M w1WOE E M sl- gAIIAE [AS[IKMT (M) K m F11pMD[ STOP -Tot
CONKYAIQ. .II.DwOf NI[ F.l KI.1TR0 w M [AK ,AEA AMT OMIT
dLCli .a A.[K SIGN MR. F.- q f7s1[K INMnNNC AK ALSO
A.OIOno.
it. AIL 1MPUlOR .O Il6IG YDST IMF OMER OE.
TS OM1R . MALL EFM m a STONOAR. IOLUMI FK- µNF ANO NR
EOONt.TS AT ALL T.[i
ESFMIIg
NIOPOS[O CATCH Msw
PROPO'EO D.OP INLET
PaOPOEO YwNwc
PRaPOS[D CLEANWI
SIRUCTMK O TAG
EMONG SIOKI DRAINAGE UK
PROPOKO - wFNAE U E
--- -- - - -- r.VOEO AGO' DRAwAE UE
-- EM- -TOUR L6t
MN)AOSCD -TOUR LM
NOT
TO
SCALE
31 L -1
�I -I I hI I h
. " a,En or m Q
.III
I L=1 11.1 I
D MF4DI OK.
AYDiI[D IM .Ito OOK M
' OWD
_ _
TIE
M ARROtD M1RII I�.! fATW E rLAO ATO
SfOI[ Al. 040AAF.m r N p. r.S @[ m t 1Y
r[KDIAU[D NWS w[.
]. DYRTI A( rd 9o11w 114.1 K NON- RKOMI[D
u.[R AOKIfFl1
1
-
y
s
1. srt m rUw b OOK E 91aw. Al. tt 4110
uDI.I D9Wm[.
1 nK s.':� i1I1Io-Ia1' @�. DO NOwOA. EOICV1Af
Mx nFS[ IN1Kw1N s 6D Ia
,T-
r'LOOY[ s1lanH s a La APMOKD
IM F{o. MR K ISO gIL/IMN Fx TG
n u.i M6S4, OA [GUN
FA6.0
24" SUBDRAIN DETAIL
N.T.%
p7 .11KD slot
2 MFRDr.L OF DR 0...n -1 M A�MD.TA- m - A III N TTTTI1
Slp mw I-T-I -M T w -SIR c-mr, KIY.190�1 MIST E mTAWo
rlIO1 M NKCRO OTIK-
A. OIER TO U S K T I U1 . --..11 A I6NMw OF DM %W ON M OMl
4. �4a � Fq KIA./FO w11L W T E SI-TTED m Olr DFOEE!
S ALL COTTONS NW y0I ELCVAT KFIECI F.pKD gAEi
S ALL I. A- AK IN IKFEKNE m M K-. COH-1q SHALL vVWv M
KN A$tx PKq 10 MOUND OKAO
1. M (--T. OHAI1 A4KO.T[LT -1 m D.t. MT OSOKP -. fu.o
OT -T. -- FIELD rB�IONS A CdS1WC1bI OOOA[NR . SNAU -1 m
l Cg1IMCTq - W-1 LOC.5141 0' Au [mTM .-TES w M FELP 11.1. m
KOHNNc OMTIxICTION
S MIIRACIq SNNL YEFY K. CMMIIOIRI SNWMT 10 wAN91101 6Aq TO
qA0[.
1D Wn d O-F4gIKO r .i.Ky.l .icu auuinw sA�o TO I- lmOrlMWC[T�OII
PO 91, OnM M 1Dr ]4 .IDES AND A MMrAI SM Sm. r.Dnq K"IW Kl-
N -wp EIM. - [rOSOAKD AM" 9MLU K 4-T[D TO I-I q
W. rw9CTOR ENBW. KKR TO EOXW INOK[X'S Kr T FOR AMTxNN
[NIIH.OM Y[CnG- Ara ROIOKr[.TS
1 TS OF CL - - q - RM M[ -D - M AINmaMR .1
� Fu 4m IAANL q OM. gMi.1G KOL,ftw-
IT. M INIOPDEO Cglours AND EOI ELIVAT1P6 91o.I .MM .D. M 1 .
l015, ND 9K.Nx WAS KIMCI IINOILO [ILVADOb wRL4w6 IAtENI. KKR
O PAWMENI q u- OAIA to ESTA COMI[CT TISAE q AOOI[GAn
.M[ MME EL[VATIOR 10 K C X. 1.OL. - 10I A I.
1] Cg1.,1C1q THAL DN9AK -w OUNA2 9101 -1 wlNarr 14 gAII A
gANW R AOmSS K. rAl(E.T M[wi m K. M [m W. DRAMAK IN TM OR
Lt(T OVI-
1•. RDE DRAM rnRlp 51uLL K ILt Pp[ SHALL -4 A I. SLID( - N. A
raY P4,T YAESS OM11O4 .00ARO q 0.•N. EIq TO R1YIf1 RAINS
RoE qAM Lo[ATns
11 KnR m [RDfoI CgWO RAIL -0, rq MNSTRUCnq EOIKNE KDIK m
1. ALL gAED q OSTMKEp AEM KTOO M -IT OF IA1ML SO[.Nxi W 01HOIL
1.. -1 AM Rol OTHE- INOlGKD KR M RIN. SHNL K
SIyDT[D .M • K. LAM K[KO M AELI.HQ .M M EEDIK 4(pTCAT
WS 6 [SIAO -Oft 9NALL NA - K-0 W. - A KALTH SIAM E
I7. =-I [IRK[RK. MC. Ntl I.1 KKUINKO AMY EOn04KN I-u- E
M OofCT rWq[IIT1 AND ,HAS NOT IIAK ANT K1D.wM1 M m M 91TA6INT
v SITE SOAS Fq TIE AS ft, BENEATH PgOEO OUILD OL (OITW- i IM91G
WIN THE Iq OTIK11 uEi [MTHADI.I OTE K CO.ITTEO w O THAU, K
aM M Or, THE AOAlIO6 E A OINf[0 EOROwKN CAON[[. .ID fuLL E
EIAAKD n M o.t..
16 SK.MT IKI KUMO. -. HMS Ml KWK. M STR X-AL ST- OF AM
[DSDNO K1AMN' ONUS q M SITE AFU DOES NDl AS9At NN KSPOF9KIW FIN
M SIMKTIIK SIAEIW OF 9xH ONUS F M1. M O.K. K KTPO16KE Fq
ETA.MO M ER.ES OF A O,AJKD [Nqt[. m EN[. M STRLn'1M1K SI-TY
E AIL c-- ETAAME .ALLS SOKOA[D m KI- F ANT. - m - OF
[.O[ A m - M - OF ALL MOPOKO WOK.IY -1 Kl- ONUS
A.OI o. M OIIAI.IGS M K- OF NL KDK.1N 11.1 E1MOq GALLS B m
E [OF OTTAI O KCCDROANE OM M AOM (OL W 41AD.4 COE. EC110M
61D I EIAI[p KTAlO4: 1MLL E9q OR THE KNLO F A IOM CA.o T
TO Ndl[q. MALL K iIO11R0 O M LOCAL RAM I MN1gAW I.q
TO CO6TWCRM • A CA L uENYO HE I WST P[KON [o4f1 -1
O.YNITA DIL L(AFTIy " A EALCO IE1RR m M LOON lISTHE Au o 1101
M 01101 .NUS KK CORnxICnO M ACCOMAIICE OM HE ArMOtO
L ALDNI D gAOMGS, w COYNLxE OM EC1IM 16101 E M 1IgM CMOw
6116D6K COO[.
A IMPV MOVSl9OT IPq AKA. .194 K
V. OYwN E AKA MJST E STAKIEO WOK FATTA- C.-S AMID ft.. KDIA
AK wS1NUED-
». ANHIOVAI OF 116 PLM O -1 M --ZA- 10 O ADAAE111 PR01[RES
I E. FIELD A� Id �FO R gNWFD KMAWOI MRI E MIANED
it M w1WOE E M sl- gAIIAE [AS[IKMT (M) K m F11pMD[ STOP -Tot
CONKYAIQ. .II.DwOf NI[ F.l KI.1TR0 w M [AK ,AEA AMT OMIT
dLCli .a A.[K SIGN MR. F.- q f7s1[K INMnNNC AK ALSO
A.OIOno.
it. AIL 1MPUlOR .O Il6IG YDST IMF OMER OE.
TS OM1R . MALL EFM m a STONOAR. IOLUMI FK- µNF ANO NR
EOONt.TS AT ALL T.[i
ESFMIIg
NIOPOS[O CATCH Msw
PROPO'EO D.OP INLET
PaOPOEO YwNwc
PRaPOS[D CLEANWI
SIRUCTMK O TAG
EMONG SIOKI DRAINAGE UK
PROPOKO - wFNAE U E
--- -- - - -- r.VOEO AGO' DRAwAE UE
-- EM- -TOUR L6t
MN)AOSCD -TOUR LM
NOT
TO
SCALE

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP#39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
ATTACHMENT D
PHOTOGRAPHS

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP#39
Mecklenburg County Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
Photograph 1. View of RPW Stream A, looking east to west.

N
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NY,/P#39
Mecklenburg County Schools
Vance High School Expansion
Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
Photograph 2. View of RPW Stream B stream origin looking west (upstream).
Photograph 4. View of BMP "on line" with RPW Stream A looking south.

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP #39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF CHARLOTTE UMBRELLA STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION
BANK APPROVAL LETTER

Charlotte - Mecklenburg
STORM
WATER
r�DR Services
September 4, 2013
Mr. Michael Iagnocco
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 W. Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28208
Subject Project: Vance High School Expansion
HUC#: 03040105 (Rocky)
600 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax [phone]
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
("Umbrella Bank ") is willing to accept the mitigation responsibility associated with the subject project. Please note that the
decision by the Umbrella Bank to accept this responsibility does not ensure acceptance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
or the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. It is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate with these agencies to
determine if payment to the Umbrella Bank for impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. The following documents must be submitted to the
Umbrella Bank within this time frame for this acceptance to remain valid:
1. 404 Permit Verification
2. 401 Water Quality Certification
3. Executed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County detailing
the use of and payment for the credits described in the table below.
Based on the information supplied by your office, the stream and wetland credits that are necessary to satisfy the
compensatory mitigation requirements and the total mitigation credits available for this for this project are detailed in the
table below.
The stream and wetland mitigation will be provided as specified in the Section 404 Permit or corresponding 401 Water
Quality Certification for impacts associated with the subject project in Hydrologic Unit 03040105 of the Rocky River Basin.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Agreement to Establish the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, dated June, 16, 2004.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (704) 336 -4495 or ihinsonl'a charlottenc. ov or
Jarrod Karl at (704) 432 -0966 or ikarl .charlottenc.gov.
Sincerely,
_ .----
Isaac J. Hins n
Mitigation Specialist
cc: Amanda Fuemmeler, USACE
Alan Johnson, NCDWQ
Jarrod Karl, CMSWS
File
0
C To report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
http : / /stormwater.charmeck.org
CHARIOML
m
Stream
linear feet
Wetlands
acres
Credits Requested for This Project
250
N/A
Credits Available for This Project
250
N/A
Mitigation Project Names
Upper Stoney Creek
The stream and wetland mitigation will be provided as specified in the Section 404 Permit or corresponding 401 Water
Quality Certification for impacts associated with the subject project in Hydrologic Unit 03040105 of the Rocky River Basin.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Agreement to Establish the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, dated June, 16, 2004.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (704) 336 -4495 or ihinsonl'a charlottenc. ov or
Jarrod Karl at (704) 432 -0966 or ikarl .charlottenc.gov.
Sincerely,
_ .----
Isaac J. Hins n
Mitigation Specialist
cc: Amanda Fuemmeler, USACE
Alan Johnson, NCDWQ
Jarrod Karl, CMSWS
File
0
C To report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
http : / /stormwater.charmeck.org
CHARIOML
m

Request for Jurisdictional Determination and NWP #39
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Vance High School Expansion
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Mecklenburg County, NC
September 2013
ATTACHMENT F
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

E I 1 Lh 80ot ^i9 '�Ol SNa
pp
Bo
IL
tg
ZO
- -- —
O
� r
Y 8 58E yEEE
a� s E�iEEp
ggQQggSSyy gg gg '
� Z'
�� 5 .. 881ee. s. e• eati ee4rra�eQ. e>L eaeo .,.•eo�o•��1 {�1�.+¢��rlaae�a5
1 �.,
I�i�� W Iii
�IJ
NJ I
to
1�
,
!off
in
re� ,
�IM
J p
= 4
= Y Y
Z eP9
a a
I
�i
I
i
lU
i I'
I

l%
�� ri1i'1/i;/ nll, ul Au
J i
0 tAc
i A'
i%
'tea, If6`�Gb • ■�� � RSC Na e
r=
'a RA
_ AAA
MT
Ap
W
J ae
I
LA
M
t
v
E�
B
A
�k
1.1 HIP
IAI{
a{ W
v.
isW[�j�
m SM+f=.
8SH
r =p;